Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a

bully/victim: A meta-analysis study
Suzet Tanya Lereya a, , Muthanna Samara b , Dieter Wolke c
a
Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
b
Department of Psychology, Kingston University London, Kingston, Upon-Thames KT1 2EE, UK
c
Department of Psychology and Division of Mental Health and Wellbeing (Warwick Medical School), University of Warwick, Coventry
CV4 7AL, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objective: Being bullied has adverse effects on childrens health. Childrens family experi-
Received 26 July 2012 ences and parenting behavior before entering school help shape their capacity to adapt and
Received in revised form 1 March 2013 cope at school and have an impact on childrens peer relationship, hence it is important to
Accepted 5 March 2013
identify how parenting styles and parentchild relationship are related to victimization in
Available online 25 April 2013
order to develop intervention programs to prevent or mitigate victimization in childhood
and adolescence.
Keywords: Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on parenting
Bullying behavior and peer victimization using MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE from 1970
Victimization through the end of December 2012. We included prospective cohort studies and cross-
Meta-analysis sectional studies that investigated the association between parenting behavior and peer
Harsh parenting victimization.
Parenting behavior Results: Both victims and those who both bully and are victims (bully/victims) were more
likely to be exposed to negative parenting behavior including abuse and neglect and mal-
adaptive parenting. The effects were generally small to moderate for victims (Hedges g
range: 0.100.31) but moderate for bully/victims (0.130.68). Positive parenting behavior
including good communication of parents with the child, warm and affectionate relation-
ship, parental involvement and support, and parental supervision were protective against
peer victimization. The protective effects were generally small to moderate for both victims
(Hedges g: range: 0.12 to 0.22) and bully/victims (0.17 to 0.42).
Conclusions: Negative parenting behavior is related to a moderate increase of risk for
becoming a bully/victim and small to moderate effects on victim status at school. Inter-
vention programs against bullying should extend their focus beyond schools to include
families and start before children enter school.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Victims of bullying are repeatedly exposed to aggressive behavior, perpetrated by an individual or peer group with more
power than the victim (Olweus, 1993, 2002; Wang, Nansel, & Iannotti, 2011). Bullying is a global problem with an average
of 32% of children being bullied across 38 countries/regions (World Helth Organization, 2012). Victims more often develop
physical health problems (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Wolke, Woods, Bloomeld, & Karstadt, 2001), a range of mental health dif-
culties including anxiety and depression (Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010; Woods & White, 2005; Zwierzynska, Wolke, &
Lereya, 2013), psychotic symptoms (Schreier et al., 2009) and borderline personality symptoms (Wolke, Schreier, Zanarini, &

Drs. Wolke and Lereyas work on this study was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) grant ES/K003593/1. Dr. Samara
received support from Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF) grant NPRP5 1134- 3-240.
Corresponding author.

0145-2134/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001
1092 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

Winsper, 2012). They are also at highly increased risk of self-harm, suicidal ideation, and attempting and completing suicides
(Fisher et al., 2012; Klomek et al., 2009; Winsper, Lereya, Zanarini, & Wolke, 2012). The targets of bullying are victims (Haynie
et al., 2001; Wolke, Woods, Bloomeld, & Karstadt, 2000), and those who both bully others and are victims of bullying are
called bully/victims (Wolke & Samara, 2004; Wolke et al., 2000). Bully/victims usually display the highest level of conduct,
school, and peer relationship problems (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Wolke & Samara, 2004) and may come from
the most adverse family backgrounds (Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005).
Childrens family experiences before entering school help shape their capacity to adapt and cope at school and have an
impact on childrens peer relationships (Ladd, 1992). Thus, it is important to identify which parenting styles and parentchild
relationships are related to victimization in order to develop intervention programs to prevent or mitigate victimization in
childhood and adolescence. From a social learning perspective, it has been argued that external environment contributes to
acquiring and maintaining aggression (Bandura, 1973, 1986), and parents child rearing behavior may serve as a model upon
which children base their behavior and expectations of future relationships (Ladd, 1992). It was found that maladaptive
parenting, marked by high levels of hostility, hitting and shouting, was related to increased risk of peer victimization at
school (e.g. Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004). On the other hand, children of authoritative parents (high on demanding and
high on responsiveness) were found to do better at school and have less adjustment problems (e.g. Baumrind, 1991; Hay &
Meldrum, 2010).
However, global parenting styles may fail to identify distinct aspects of parenting that are associated with childhood
adjustments (Linver & Silverberg, 1997). The examination of individual parenting characteristics enable the exploration
of relative independent effects of these characteristics on child outcomes (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). For example, previous
research identied several factors that are important for the socialization of children. These include the extent of supervision
(Georgiou, 2008), warmth (Booth, 1994; Fine, Voydanoff, & Donnelly, 1993) and overprotection (Finnegan, Hodges, & Perry,
1998). Knowing which parenting factors increase or decrease the risk of victimization is necessary in order to develop
prevention or intervention programs that go beyond the school context.
The objective of this meta-analysis is to systematically investigate the type and strength of the association between par-
enting behavior (i.e. parentchild communication, authoritative parenting, parental involvement and support, supervision,
warmth and affection of the parents, abuse and neglect, maladaptive parenting, overprotection) on being bullied. Analyses
are conducted separately for victims and bully/victims.

Methods

The present meta-analysis was conducted according to the MOOSE guidelines for systematic reviews of observational
studies (see supplementary Table 1; Brugha et al., 2012; Stroup et al., 2000).

Search strategy

We conducted a literature search for cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of the association between parenting behav-
ior and peer victimization published between January 1970, when the inuential work of Olweus on bullying appeared, and
the end of December 2012. The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Eric and EMBASE. The
following keywords were used bully*, bulli* and victim* in conjunction with parent*, authoritarian, authoritative, per-
missive, hostility, warmth, punitive, indulgent, neglectful, overprotection, discipline, control, dominance, accept*,
reject*, sensitive, insensitive, communication, affect*, encouragement, interaction, monitor*, responsive, family,
and famili*. The parenting keywords were chosen from Holden and Millers meta-analysis (1999) on enduring parents child
rearing styles.

Study inclusion and exclusion criteria

The online MEDLINE search yielded 6,123 articles, the PsychINFO yielded 4,401 articles, Eric yielded 2,104 articles and
EMBASE yielded 4,039 articles. The overall systematic literature search included 16,667 articles. There was an overlap of
4,926 articles. Duplicate articles were excluded from subsequent searches and the nal literature search included 11,741
articles (see Fig. 1).
In order to be included in the analysis, the study had to meet three criteria. Firstly, the study had to include
measures of peer victimization at school and parenting behavior that was directly related to the child. Guided by pre-
vious meta-analyses on peer victimization (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010; Reijntjes, Kamphuis,
Prinzie, & Telch, 2010) studies that assessed relational, physical, verbal and/or cyber victimization were included. The
studies could use self-report (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004), peer nominations (Cenkseven Onder & Yurtal, 2008), or
teacher (Shin & Kim, 2008) or parent reports (Bowes et al., 2009). Secondly, the authors should report (or provide
after request) sufcient statistical information (correlations, means and standard deviations, odds ratio, F or t values)
in order to allow the use of meta-analytic techniques. Finally, the studies needed to come from published sources
in English, such as journals, book chapters, or books. Studies were excluded for the following reasons: (1) the sam-
ple was from a clinical population; (2) it was a qualitative study; (3) it was an experimental study; (4) it included
only distal family variables that are indirectly related to the child (e.g. domestic violence); or (5) there was not suf-
 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108 1093

Fig. 1. Description of the systematic review.

cient statistical information for the computation of effects and it was not provided by the authors despite being
contacted.
We reviewed the titles and abstracts of all articles found (N = 11,741), resulting in 291 full text articles for additional
review. Two of the authors independently screened the full-text articles according to the selection and inclusion criteria. A
total of 72 articles were further excluded. For studies where data were missing, authors were contacted to obtain information
about the relationship between victimization and parenting factors or moderator variables. However, some authors were not
able to provide missing data (e.g. Baldry, 2003; Rigby, 1993; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001), could not be reached (e.g. Lowenstein,
1977, 1978) or did not reply (e.g. Curtner-Smith, 2000). These studies were, therefore, not included in the meta-analysis.
Finally, 70 studies (N = 119 samples for victims; N = 55 samples for bully/victims) were included in the meta-analysis and
are shown in Table 1. The nal meta-analytic sample contained a total of 208,778 children with an age range of 425
years.

Selection of parenting behavior variables and coding

Two coders independently constructed categories for the parenting variables that were then jointly reviewed
and decided with the help of a senior reviewer. Because, merging variables into very few categories might
have obstructed any systematic patterns or too many categories that might reveal insufcient data for the anal-
ysis, considerable attention was given to determine the appropriate categories (Holden & Miller, 1999). Eight
categories of parenting behavior were created (see supplementary Table 2 for rationale behind the categories):
positive parenting behavior: authoritative parenting, parentchild communication, parental involvement and support,
 1094
Table 1
Summary of studies examining parenting behavior and peer victimization.

Study N Age range a Victimization Victimization Victimization Designc National Parenting

informantsb subtypes status settingd behavior
variable

Accordino and Accordino 124 7.512 Self-report General & Victim Cross-sectional America Warmth & affection
(2011) cyber
Ahmed and Braithwaite 610 7.512 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Authoritative parenting,
(2004) bully/victim maladaptive parenting
Alikasifoglu, Erginoz, 3,519 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication
Ercan, Uysal, and bully/victim
Albayrak-Kaymak (2007)
Aman-Back and Bjorkqvist 773 7.512 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting,
(2007) communication
Baldry and Farrington 238 12+ Self-report General Bully/victim Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting,

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

(1998) maladaptive parenting,
parental involvement &
support
Baldry (2004) 661 12+ Self-report Overt & Victim Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement &
relational support
Baldry and Farrington 679 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting,
(2005) maladaptive parenting,
parental involvement &
support
Bender and Lsel (2011) 1,163 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting
Beran (2009) 4,293 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Warmth & affection,
maladaptive parenting
Beran, Hughes, and Lupart 2,084 7.512 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement &
(2008) support
Bowes et al. (2009) 2,232 47 Mixed General Victim Longitudinal Europe Abuse & neglect, warmth &
bully/victim affection
Brighi, Guarini, Melotti, 2,326 12+ Self-report Direct, indirect, Victim Cross-sectional Europe Warmth & affection
Galli, and Genta (2012) & cyber
Burk et al. (2008) 238 7.512 Mixed General Victim Longitudinal America Maladaptive parenting,
bully/victim parental involvement &
support
Cassidy (2009) 461 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting,
parental involvement &
support
Cava, Musitu, and Murgui 1,319 12+ Self-report Overt Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication, parental
(2007) involvement & support
Cenkseven Onder and 273 12+ Peer General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication, parental
Yurtal (2008) nomination involvement & support
warmth & affection
Centers for Disease Control 5,807 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting
and Prevention (2011) bully/victim
Chaux, Molano, and 53,316 12+ Self-report Overt Victim Cross-sectional Other Maladaptive parenting
Podlesky (2009) bully/victim
Cheng, Cheung, and 712 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement &
Cheung (2008) support
Cheng et al. (2010) 9,015 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement &
support
Table 1 (Continued)

Study N Age range a Victimization Victimization Victimization Designc National Parenting

informantsb subtypes status settingd behavior
variable

Coleman (2003) 67 7.512 Self-report Overt Victim Cross-sectional America Warmth & affection
Dehue, Bolman, Vollink, 1,184 7.512 Self-report General & Victim Cross-sectional Europe Authoritative parenting, abuse
and Pouwelse (2012) cyber bully/victim & neglect, maladaptive
parenting
Demanet and Van Houtte 11,872 12+ Peer General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement &
(2012) nomination bully/victim support, warmth & affection
Demaray and Malecki 499 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Parental involvement &

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

(2003) bully/victim support
Duong, Schwartz, Chang, 211 7.512 Peer General Victim Cross-sectional Other Maladaptive parenting
Kelly, and Tom (2009) nomination
Fanti, Demetriou, and 1,416 12+ Self-report General & Victim Longitudinal Europe Parental involvement &
Hawa (2012) cyber bully/victim support
Finnegan et al. (1998) 184 7.512 Peer General Victim Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting,
nomination overprotection, warmth &
affection
Franic et al. (2011) 803 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting,
parental involvement &
support, warmth & affection
Hay and Meldrum (2010) 426 12+ Self-report General & Victim Cross-sectional America Authoritative parenting
cyber
Hazemba, Siziya, Muula, 2,348 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision
and Rudatsikira (2008)
Helweg-Larsen, Schutt, and 3,707 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting,
Larsen (2012) supervision
Herba et al. (2008) 1,526 12+ Peer General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting
nomination bully/victim
Holt and Espelage (2007) 1,501 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Parental involvement &
bully/victim support
Holt, Kaufman Kantor, and 205 7.512 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Supervision
Finkelhor (2009)
Jimenez, Musitu, Ramos, 565 12+ Self-report Verbal, Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication
and Murgui (2009) physical &
relational
Johnson et al. (2011) 832 12+ Self-report Verbal, Victim Cross-sectional America Warmth & affection
relational &
cyber
Kelleher et al. (2008) 211 12+ Mixed General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Abuse & neglect
Kokkinos and Panayiotou 186 7.512 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting
(2007) bully/victim

1095
 1096
Table 1 (Continued)

Study N Age range a Victimization Victimization Victimization Designc National Parenting

informantsb subtypes status settingd behavior
variable

Lemstra, Nielsen, Rogers, 4,197 7.512 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Maladaptive parenting
Thompson, and Moraros
(2012)
Ma, Phelps, Lerner, and 776 7.512 Self-report General Victim Longitudinal America Warmth & affection
Lerner (2009)
Ma and Bellmore (2012) 831 12+ Peer Overt & Victim Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting
nomination relational

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

Ma (2001) 13,751 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement &
support
Marini et al. (2006) 7,290 12+ Self-report Overt & Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement &
relational bully/victim support, supervision, warmth
& affection
Mesch (2009) 935 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim Cross-sectional America Supervision
Mishna, Khoury-Kassabri, 2,186 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision
Gadalla, and Daciuk bully/victim
(2012)
Mohr (2006) 733 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Abuse & neglect, warmth &
bully/victim affection
Muula, Herring, Siziya, and 2,249 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision
Rudatsikira (2009)
Murray-Harvey and Slee 888 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement &
(2010) support
Perren and Hournung 1,107 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement &
(2005) bully/victim support
Rigby, Slee, and Martin 1,432 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Overprotection, warmth &
(2007) affection
Rothon, Head, Klineberg, 2,790 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Parental involvement &
and Stansfeld (2011) support
Rudatsikira, Mataya, Siziya, 7,338 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision
and Muula (2008)
Rudatsikira, Muula, and 1,197 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Parental involvement &
Siziya (2007) support
Rudatsikira, Muula, and 2,111 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision
Siziya (2008)
Rudatsikira, Siziya, 6,283 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Supervision
Kazembe, and Muula
(2007)
Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, 198 7.512 Peer General Victim Longitudinal America Maladaptive parenting
and Bates (1997) nomination bully/victim
Table 1 (Continued)

Study N Age range a Victimization Victimization Victimization Designc National Parenting

informantsb subtypes status settingd behavior
variable

Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, 389 7.512 Peer General Victim Longitudinal America Abuse & neglect, maladaptive
and Bates (2000) (Study nomination parenting
1)
Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, 243 7.512 Peer General Victim Longitudinal America Maladaptive parenting
and Bates (2000) (Study nomination
2)
Segrin, Nevarez, Arroyo, 111 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Communication

S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

and Harwood (2012)
Shin and Kim (2008) 297 47 Teacher report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Abuse & neglect, maladaptive
parenting, warmth & affection
Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, 11,033 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Communication, parental
and Haynie (2007) bully/victim involvement & support
Stevens, De Bourdeaudhuij, 1,719 7.512 Mixed General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Communication, maladaptive
and Van Oost (2002) bully/victim parenting, overprotection,
parental involvement &
support, warmth & affection
Tanigawa, Furlong, Felix, 544 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Parental involvement &
and Sharkey (2011) support
Totura et al. (2009) 2,506 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Parental involvement &
bully/victim support
Veenstra et al. (2005) 1,065 7.512 Peer General Victim Cross-sectional Europe Maladaptive parenting,
nomination bully/victim overprotection, warmth &
affection
Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel 7,182 12+ Self-report Physical, Victim Cross-sectional America Parental involvement &
(2009) relational, bully/victim support
verbal & cyber
Wilson, Bovet, 1,427 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional Other Parental involvement &
Viswanathan, and Suris support
(2012)
Windle et al. (2010) 598 712 Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Supervision, warmth &
affection
Winsper et al. (2012) 6,043 712 Mixed General Victim Longitudinal Europe Maladaptive parenting
bully/victim
Yabko, Hokoda, and Ulloa 242 12+ Self-report General Victim Cross-sectional America Maladaptive parenting
(2008)
Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) 1,501 12+ Self-report Cyber Victim Cross-sectional America Supervision, warmth &
affection, maladaptive
parenting
a,b,c,d
Moderators. Please note study design was dened on the base of how the included articles analyzed the data; a longitudinal study analyzing data in a cross-sectional manner was deemed as cross-sectional.

1097
1098 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

supervision, warmth and affection; negative parenting behavior: abuse/neglect, maladaptive parenting, and overprotec-
tion.
Then, the two coders independently placed 117 parenting variables into the 8 categories (see supplementary Table
2 for variables in each category). Cohens kappa was computed for the constructs and results revealed very good
inter-rater agreements; all kappas exceeded 0.84. All discrepancies were discussed and resolved by the coders. Three
of the 117 variables did not match any of the categories. These variables (i.e. family problem solving, family gen-
eral control and parental responsibility) were not classied into any of the suggested constructs and thus were not
included in the analyses. In several instances, two or more variables used in a study were merged and classied into
the same categories (e.g. tracking and knowledge [Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & Ylc, 2006] were placed in the supervi-
sion category). In such cases, the effect sizes from the two (or more) variables were averaged to form one measure
per study as recommended by Rosenthal to maintain independent samples in the meta-analysis (Rosenthal, 1991). If
more than one study was published using the same data set, the paper with the most information and parenting
factors was chosen (e.g. Bowes et al., 2009; Shakoor et al., 2012). With regards to sample characteristics, age was bro-
ken down into the following categories: early childhood (47 years), middle childhood (7.512 years) and adolescence
(older than 12 years). Assessment method of peer victimization (e.g. self-report, peer nomination, teacher or mixed),
continent (Europe, America and other) and whether the study was cross-sectional or longitudinal were also coded
(Table 1).

Data analysis

Studies provided different data and Hedges g, a dimensionless effect size, dened as the difference between
the means of the two compared groups (e.g. victims versus neutrals) divided by the pooled standard devia-
tion, was used (Cooper & Hedges, 1994). The outcomes of studies reporting correlations were transformed to
Hedges g using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) program (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2011).
Hedges g with 95% condence intervals for each study comparing the individual studys effect size to the
overall weighted effect size across studies for each parenting category are reported (see Figs. 25). Effect size
may be interpreted using Cohens convention of small (0.20), medium (0.50) and large (0.80) effects (Cohen,
1988).
Mean effect sizes for the total sample were calculated for those studies reporting separate effect sizes for two or more
independent groups of participants. If different effect sizes were derived from self-, mother-, teacher-, and peer-reports of
victimization, these were combined into one effect size. Similarly, very few studies provided separate effect sizes for males
and females; hence, if an effect size was given separately for males and females, they were combined.
Effect sizes were analyzed using the random effects model. Error term is composed of variation originating from
both within-study variability and between study differences (Cooper & Hedges, 1994). Hence, the generalization extends
beyond the specic studies to other studies considered to be part of the same population (Rosenthal, 1995). The
distribution of effect sizes was examined using tests of heterogeneity. Signicant heterogeneity indicates that differ-
ences across effect sizes are likely due to factors other than sampling error, such as different study characteristics
(Borenstein et al., 2011). Moderator analyses were then conducted to explain variability in effect sizes across stud-
ies. Categorical moderator tests are analogous to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and yield homogeneity estimates,
a within groups Q (Qw ) and a between groups Q (Qb ). A signicant value for Qw indicates that the effect sizes
within a category of the moderator variable are heterogeneous, whereas a signicant value for Qb indicates that
the effect sizes are signicantly different across different categories of the moderator variable (Borenstein et al.,
2011).
We examined the potential for publication bias by using four methods. First, we computed Rosenthals failsafe num-
ber (FSN; i.e. the number of studies that would be required to nullify the observed effect) for each combined effect size,
separately to address the le drawer problem (Rosenthal, 1991). A tolerance level around a failsafe N equal to 5 times
the number of effect size (k) plus 10 (5k + 10 benchmark; Rosenthal, 1979) was calculated. Satisfactoriness is estab-
lished if the fail-safe ratio exceeds Rosenthals threshold at 1.00, i.e. when the fail-safe number consistently exceeds the
5k + 10 benchmark then there is no need for additional research to establish the phenomenon. Secondly, biases according
to study size were assessed with use of the Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test (Kendalls tau b; Begg & Mazumdar,
1994). Hence, if small studies with controversial results were less likely to be published, the correlation between vari-
ance and effect size would be high. Conversely, lack of signicant correlation can be seen as absence of publication bias.
Thirdly, Eggers test was used to assess whether there is a tendency for selective publication of studies based on the
nature and direction of results. In the linear regression analysis, the intercept value provides a measure of asymme-
try; the larger its deviation from zero, the more pronounced the asymmetry (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997).
Lastly, Duval and Tweedies Trim and Fill method was used. This method initially trims the asymmetric studies from one
side to identify the unbiased effect, and then lls the plot by re-inserting the trimmed studies as well as their imputed
counterparts.
 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108 1099

Results

The Hedges g for each parenting behavior category is shown in Figs. 25. The studies included in the analysis with their
descriptions are shown in supplementary Tables 3 and 4.
Positive parenting behavior (Figs. 2 and 4): The combined effect size showed that victims and bully/victims were sig-
nicantly less likely to have authoritative parents (victims: Hedges g = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.11; z = 4.42; p < 0.001;
bully/victims: Hedges g = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.18; z = 3.55; p < 0.001), good parentchild communication (victims:
Hedges g = 0.12; 95% CI, 0.20, 0.05; z = 3.13; p < 0.01; bully/victims: Hedges g = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.04; z = 2.62;
p < 0.01), parents that were involved and supportive (victims: Hedges g = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.29, 0.15; z = 5.97; p < 0.001;
bully/victims: Hedges g = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.40, 0.20; z = 5.82; p < 0.001), receive supervision (victims: Hedges g = 0.16,
95% CI: 0.21, 0.12; z = 6.81; p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedges g = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.14; z = 3.31; p < 0.01) and
warm and affective parents (victims: Hedges g = 0.22; 95% CI, 0.30, 0.14; z = 5.17; p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedges
g = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.31; z = 7.21; p < 0.001). Overall, both victims and bully/victims were less likely to live in a
family with positive parenting (victims: Hedges g = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.23, 0.15; z = 9.65 p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedges
g = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.26; z = 9.07; p < 0.001).
Negative parenting behavior (Figs. 3 and 5): The combined effect size showed that victims and bully/victims were sig-
nicantly more likely to have been abused or neglected (victims: Hedges g = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.180.44; z = 4.53; p < 0.001;

Fig. 2. Peer victimization and positive parenting behavior.

1100 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

Fig. 2. (Continued)

bully/victims: Hedges g = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.440.92; z = 5.57; p < 0.001), or to have experienced maladaptive parenting (victims:
Hedges g = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.150.40; z = 4.31; p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedges g = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.230.75; z = 3.74; p < 0.001).
In addition, victims were more likely to have overprotective parents (Hedges g = 0.10; 95% CI, 0.030.17; z = 2.63; p < 0.01).
Overall, both victims and bully/victims were found to experience negative parenting more often (victims: Hedges g = 0.26;
95% CI, 0.160.36; z = 4.90; p < 0.001; bully/victims: Hedges g = 0.48 95% CI: 0.260.70; z = 4.23; p < 0.001).

Potential moderator variables

The heterogeneity analyses for some of the categories were signicant (see supplementary Tables 3 and 4) indicat-
ing potential moderating. Meta-ANOVAs of continent (Europe, America or other), age (47, 7.512 or over 12 years),
assessment method (self, peer, teacher or mixed) and design (cross-sectional versus longitudinal) were employed for each
parenting behavior category where moderation effects were detected. Supplementary Tables 5 and 6 show all moderation
effects.
Victims: Communication showed a signicant moderating effect according to the assessment method as indicated by
the Qb heterogeneity coefcient (Qb = 6.741; p < 0.05) suggesting that studies using peer nomination showed lower levels
of communication between the parent and the child (mean ES = 0.494; p < 0.01; N = 1). Warmth and affection category
showed signicant moderating effects according to the age group (Qb = 7.193; p < 0.05). Children aged 12 years or more were
less likely to have warm and affectionate families (mean ES = 0.305; p < 0.001; N = 11) compared to the other age groups.
Lastly, supervision category showed moderating effects according to continent (Qb = 16.862; p < 0.001) with European studies
nding less supervision for victims (mean ES = 0.311; p < 0.001; N = 1).
Bully-victims: Parental involvement and support showed signicant moderator effects according to the assessment
method (Qb = 7.03; p < 0.05) suggesting that children who self-reported victimization (mean ES = 0.35; p < 0.001; N = 8) were
less likely to have parents who are involved and supportive. Warmth and affection showed signicant moderator effects
according to continent (Qb = 6.678; p < 0.05), assessment method (Qb = 13.651; p < 0.01) and age group (Qb = 10.704; p < 0.01).
 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108 1101

Fig. 3. Peer victimization and negative parenting behavior.

Children from other continents (mean ES = 0.59; p < 0.001; N = 1), who self-reported victimization (mean ES = 0.58;
p < 0.001; N = 3) or were over 12 years old (mean ES = 0.52; p < 0.001; N = 4) had parents with less warmth and affection.
Moreover, maladaptive parenting and overall negative parenting behavior showed signicant moderating effects according
to continent (maladaptive parenting: Qb = 32.326; p < 0.001; overall negative parenting: Qb = 20.124; p < 0.001), other con-
tinents showed strongest maladaptive parenting and overall negative parenting behavior (maladaptive parenting: mean
ES = 0.94, p < 0.001: N = 2; overall negative parenting behavior: mean ES = 0.92, p < 0.001: N = 2).

Publication bias

A failsafe N and the 5k + 10 benchmark were calculated for all categories (see Tables 2 and 3). For victims, the
meta-analysis of authoritative parenting and overprotection did not exceed the benchmark suggesting effects are open
for future disconrmations. The Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation results for overall negative parenting behavior
showed that controversial results from small studies were less likely to be published. Eggers test showed signi-
cant results for parental involvement and support and overall positive and negative parenting behavior suggesting
that publication bias might have inuenced the estimates. Duval & Tweedies trim and ll procedure resulted in
slightly different effect sizes for supervision, warmth and affection, overall positive parenting behavior, maladaptive
parenting, overprotection and overall negative parenting behavior. For bully/victims, authoritative parenting, communi-
1102 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

Fig. 4. Bully/victims and positive parenting behavior.

cation and supervision categories did not exceed the 5k + 10 benchmark suggesting that the effect may change with
future studies. The Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation results for all categories were not signicant. Eggers test
showed signicant results for communication, maladaptive parenting and overall negative parenting behavior suggest-
ing that publication bias might have inuenced the estimates. Duval & Tweedies trim and ll procedure resulted in
slightly different effect sizes for parental involvement and support, overall positive parenting behavior, and abuse and
neglect.

Discussion

This review nds that both victims and bully/victims are more likely to be exposed to negative parenting.
Although the effect sizes were usually small for increasing the risk of being a victim, the effects of negative par-
enting were moderate for bully/victims. Abuse and neglect and maladaptive parenting were the best predictors of
victim or bully/victim status at school. Furthermore, high parental involvement and support, and warm and affec-
tionate relationships were most likely to protect children and adolescents against peer victimization followed by
good family communication and supervision. However, protection by positive parenting for becoming a victim of
peer bullying was small and at best moderate for bully/victims. These effects were found independent of whether
reported by children themselves, parents, teachers or mixed method. The effects of parenting were found to be gen-
erally stronger for bully/victims than victims. Bully/victims have been shown to display the highest level of conduct,
school, and peer relationship problems (Juvonen et al., 2003; Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000) and have the great-
est risk of developing multiple psychopathologic behaviors compared to pure bullies, pure victims or children who
 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108 1103

Fig. 5. Bully/victims and negative parenting behavior.

are not involved in bullying behavior (Kim, Leventhal, Koh, Hubbard, & Boyce, 2006). The reason behind developing
such problems may be partly due to exposure to harsher parenting rather than being a bully and victim simultane-
ous.
Through their experiences with primary caregivers, children may learn rules and constructs of relationships. According
to social learning theories (Bandura, 1978), family-relational schema (Perry, Hodges, & Egan, 2001), and attachment theory
(Bowlby, 1973), children who grow up in a socially adverse environment where they are exposed to violence may be at
particular risk for learning negative relationship patterns. Moreover, research indicates that abused children experience
multiple victimization during their lives (Duncan, 1999). Certain characteristics of the victimized children may make them
more likely to be targets of other forms of assault. For example, some maltreated and abused children may adopt a sub-
missive and ingratiating posture with their parents in an effort to maintain their safety in violent and/or chaotic homes
(Finkelhor & Browne, 1985; Koenig, Cicchetti, & Rogosch, 2000). Moreover, children who are exposed to negative parent-
ing may learn that they are powerless, have less-condence and become less able to assert their needs (Duncan, 2004);
they may generalize such behavior to extra familial interactions; and peers may regard them as easy targets for bullying
(Schwartz, Dodge, & Coie, 1993; Wolke & Samara, 2004). On the other hand, some maltreated children display height-
ened levels of aggression (Shields & Cicchetti, 1998) and antisocial acts (Kaufman & Cicchetti, 1989), which suggests that
they may be more inclined toward bullying behavior. Adverse parenting has also been shown to alter brain and stress
reactions that in turn may make children more likely to be targets of bullying (Belsky & de Haan, 2011). On the other
hand, protective factors, such as positive parenting, may strengthen the childs self-concept and help to acquire adaptive
coping strategies that reduce the chance of peer victimization (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2003) and make the child
more resilient (Rutter, 1987). Although parental involvement and support and high supervision decrease the chances of
children involving in bullying behavior, for victims, overprotection increased this risk. It is possible that children with
overprotective parents may not develop qualities such as autonomy and assertion (Finnegan et al., 1998), and hence,
they may become easy targets for bullies. It could also be that parents of victims may become overprotective of their
children.
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these ndings. First, the cross-sectional nature (N = 62) of
most studies does not allow to differentiate cause and effect. The relationship between parenting and child characteristics
is bidirectional (Eisenberg et al., 1999; Lengua, 2006; i.e. a bullied child may be difcult and thus lead to maladaptive par-
enting, or maladaptive parenting could lead to being bullied by peers). However, the few available prospective studies
(N = 8) provide tentative evidence for temporal priority, i.e. parenting behaviors are precursors of being bullied. Sec-
ondly, only studies published in English were used in the analysis. However, the analysis revealed no publication bias
in most of the categories. Thirdly, some of the studies used the same informant (e.g. both being bullied and parenting
characteristics are self-reported by children); hence the results might be inated by common method variance. How-
ever, studies that used different informants revealed similar results and there were no signicant differences between
1104 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

Table 2
Publication bias analyses for victims.

Victims Fail safe Na 5k + 10 Kendalls tauc Eggers testd Trim-and-ll

r = 0.05 benchmarkb (95% CI)e

Authoritative 24 35 0.00 = 0.22 0.19

p = 0.50 (5.94, 6.38) (0.27, 0.11)
p = 0.46
Communication 57 50 0.25 = 1.93 0.12
p = 0.19 (6.53, 2.67) (0.20, 0.05)
p = 0.17
Parental involvement & 1896 140 0.19 = 3.34 0.22
support p = 0.09 (4.76, 1.91) (0.29, 0.15)
p < 0.001
Supervision 354 70 0.17 = 0.21 0.16
p = 0.23 (2.44,2.02) (0.21, 0.12)
p = 0.42
Warmth & affection 821 105 0.02 = 0.39 0.22
p = 0.14 (1.90, 2.68) (0.30, 0.13)
p = 0.36
Overall positive 10,003 355 0.09 = 2.45 0.17
parenting behavior p = 0.13 (3.29, 1.61) (0.21, 0.13)
p < 0.001
Abuse & neglect 42 40 0.00 = 0.09 0.31
p = 0.50 (3.69,3.87) (0.17, 0.44)
p = 0.47
Maladaptive parenting 3622 140 0.20 = 2.48 0.31
p = 0.07 (5.50, 0.54) (0.19, 0.43)
p = 0.05
Overprotection 6 30 0.17 = 0.76 0.09
p = 0.37 (5.93, 7.44) (0.03, 0.16)
p = 0.34
Overall negative 4837 185 0.26 = 2.39 0.30
parenting behavior p = 0.01 (4.74, 0.04) (0.20, 0.39)
p = 0.02
a
Rosenthals failsafe number: the number of the studies that would be required to nullify the observed effect.
b
Tolerance level around a failsafe N (5 times the number of effect sizes plus 10).
c
Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test.
d
Eggers regression intercept.
e
Duval and Tweedies trim and ll method (trims the studies from one side to identify the unbiased effect).

assessment methods with regards to parenting behavior variables. Fourthly, most of the studies included did not measure
different forms of victimization separately (i.e. physical and relational bullying). Although these two forms of bullying are
often both experienced (Wolke et al., 2000), they may be differentially related to personal adjustment (Crick & Bigbee,
1998). Fifthly, although previous studies showed that the parents treat their daughters and sons differently (Starrels,
1994) and the effects of parenting is different for boys and girls (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, & McBride-Chang, 2003), we
were not able to analyze the effect sizes separately as most studies did not measure the relationships between par-
enting and bullying involvement separately for boys and girls. Finally, substantial heterogeneity was detected within
the parenting categories. This may be due to our classication of the various parenting concepts into the eight cate-
gories.
In conclusion, our review of 70 studies nds evidence that parenting has small to moderate associations with being
bullied, in particular if the child is both a victim and bullies others (bully/victim). Bullying is a substantial problem (World
Health Organization, 2012) and involvement in bullying as a victim has long-term mental health and life course conse-
quences (Arseneault et al., 2010; Wolke, Copeland, Angold, & Costello, in press). Moreover, previous research has shown
that children involved in bullying behavior as bully/victims are at a greater risk for developing behavioral and psycho-
logical problems (Juvonen et al., 2003; Kumpulainen & Rasanen, 2000; Wolke et al., in press). Partly, the reason behind
developing such problems may be due to exposure to harsher parenting rather than being a bully and victim simulta-
neously. Recent evidence indicates that although bully/victims come from harsher family environments, this difference
may by itself only partly explain adverse long-term consequences (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013). However,
future studies on bullying need to take into account parenting and family adversity when investigating the associations
between victimization role and outcomes. General practitioners should routinely enquire about parentchild and peer rela-
tionships. Intervention programs that target children who are exposed to harsh or abusive parenting, may prevent peer
victimization. Specic parental training programs may be necessary to strengthen supportive involvement and warm and
affectionate parenting to improve family relationships and prevent or reduce victimization by peers (Samara & Smith,
2008).
 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108 1105

Table 3
Publication bias analyses for bully/victims.

Bully/victims Fail safe Na 5k + 10 Kendalls tauc Eggers test d Trim-and-ll (95% CI)e
r = 0.05 benchmarkb

Authoritative 24 25 0.00 = 0.97 0.39

parenting p = 0.50 (35.36, 33.41) (0.61, 0.17)
p = 0.39
Communication 2 25 0.00 = 0.07 0.17
p = 0.50 (13.13, 12.99) (0.30, 0.04)
p = 0.02
Parental involvement & 347 65 0.11 = 0.49 0.26
support p = 0.32 (2.76, 1.79) (0.37, 0.16)
p = 0.48
Supervision 20 25 0.00 = 2.17 0.34
p = 0.50 (59.82, 55.48) (0.54, 0.14)
p = 0.36
Warmth & affection 354 45 0.00 = 1.27 0.41
p = 0.50 (2.66, 5.20) (0.52, 0.30)
p = 0.22
Overall positive 2065 140 0.21 = 0.15 0.27
parenting behavior p = 0.07 (1.64, 1.34) (0.35, 0.19)
p = 0.42
Abuse & neglect 30 25 0.00 = 0.12 0.64
p = 0.50 (27.96, 28.19) (0.41, 0.88)
p = 0.48
Maladaptive parenting 2568 75 0.11 = 4.29 0.49
p = 0.29 (8.07, 0.51) (0.23, 0.75)
p = 0.02
Overall negative 3306 100 0.04 = 4.15 0.48
parenting behavior p = 0.41 (7.00, 1.31) (0.26, 0.70)
p < 0.001
a
Rosenthals failsafe number: the number of the studies that would be required to nullify the observed effect.
b
Tolerance level around a failsafe N (5 times the number of effect sizes plus 10).
c
Begg and Mazumdar rank correlation test.
d
Eggers regression intercept.
e
Duval and Tweedies trim and ll method (trims the studies from one side to identify the unbiased effect).

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank all the authors who supplied the required information to perform the meta-analysis.

References

Accordino, D. B., & Accordino, M. P. (2011). An exploratory study of face-to-face and cyberbullying in sixth grade students. American Secondary Education,
40(1), 1430.
Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite, V. (2004). Bullying and victimization: Cause for concern for both families and schools. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 3554.
Alikasifoglu, M., Erginoz, E., Ercan, O., Uysal, O., & Albayrak-Kaymak, D. (2007). Bullying behaviours and psychosocial health: Results from a cross-sectional
survey among high school students in Istanbul, Turkey. European Journal of Pediatrics, 166, 12531260.
Aman-Back, S., & Bjorkqvist, K. (2007). Relationship between home and school adjustment: Childrens experiences at ages 10 and 14. Perceptual & Motor
Skills, 104(3 Pt 1), 965L 974.
Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: Much ado about nothing? Psychological
Medicine, 40, 717729.
Baldry, A. C. (2003). Bullying in schools and exposure to domestic violence. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 713732.
Baldry, A. C. (2004). The impact of direct and indirect bullying on the mental and physical health of Italian youngsters. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 343355.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Parenting inuences on bullying and victimisation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 237254.
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescence bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 263284.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning theory analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28, 1229.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The inuence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 11(1), 5695.
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 10881101.
Belsky, J., & de Haan, M. (2011). Annual research review: Parenting and childrens brain development: The end of the beginning. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 52, 409428.
Bender, D., & Lsel, F. (2011). Bullying at school as a predictor of delinquency, violence and other anti-social behaviour in adulthood. Criminal Behaviour
and Mental Health, 21, 99106.
Beran, T. (2009). Correlates of peer victimization and achievement: An exploratory model. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 348361.
Beran, T., Hughes, G., & Lupart, J. (2008). A model of achievement and bullying: Analyses of the Canadian national longitudinal survey of children and youth
data. Educational Research, 50, 2539.
Booth, C. L. (1994). Predicting social adjustment in middle childhood: The role of preschool attachment security and maternal style. Social Development, 3,
189204.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2011). Comprehensive meta analysis version 2. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Bowes, L., Arseneault, L., Maughan, B., Taylor, A., Caspi, A., & Moftt, T. E. (2009). School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with childrens
bullying involvement: A nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 545553.
1106 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

Bowlby, J. (1973). . Attachment and loss: Seperation, anxiety and anger New York: Basic Books.
Brighi, A., Guarini, A., Melotti, G., Galli, S., & Genta, M. L. (2012). Predictors of victimisation across direct bullying, indirect bullying and cyberbullying.
Emotional & Behavioural Difculties, 17, 375388.
Brugha, T. S., Matthews, R., Morgan, Z., Hill, T., Alonso, J., & Jones, D. R. (2012). Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of
observational studies in psychiatric epidemiology: Systematic review. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 200, 446453.
Burk, L. R., Park, J., Armstrong, J. M., Klein, M. H., Goldsmith, H. H., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Essex, M. J. (2008). Identication of early child and family risk factors
for aggressive victim status in rst grade. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(4), 513526.
Cassidy, T. (2009). Bullying and victimisation in school children: The role of social identity, problem-solving style, and family and school context. Social
Psychology of Education, 12(1), 6376.
Cava, M. J., Musitu, G., & Murgui, S. (2007). Individual and social risk factors related to overt victimization in a sample of Spanish adolescents. Psychological
Reports, 101, 275290.
Cenkseven Onder, F., & Yurtal, F. (2008). An investigation of the family characteristics of bullies, victims, and positively behaving adolescents. Educational
Sciences: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 821832.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Bullying among middle school and high school students Massachusetts, 2009. MMWR Morbidity &
Mortality Weekly Report, 60(15), 465471.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family
Psychology, 17, 598606.
Chaux, E., Molano, A., & Podlesky, P. (2009). Socio-economic, socio-political and socio-emotional variables explaining school bullying: A country-wide
multilevel analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 520529.
Cheng, S. T., Cheung, K. C. C., & Cheung, C. K. (2008). Peer victimization and depression among Hong Kong adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64,
766776.
Cheng, Y., Newman, I. M., Qu, M., Mbulo, L., Chai, Y., Chen, Y., & Shell, D. F. (2010). Being bullied and psychosocial adjustment among middle school students
in China. Journal of School Health, 80, 193199.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coleman, P. K. (2003). Perceptions of parentchild attachment, social self-efcacy, and peer relationships in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development,
12, 351368.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence.
JAMA Psychiatry, 18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504
Crick, N. R., & Bigbee, M. A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
66, 337347.
Curtner-Smith, M. E. (2000). Mechanisms by which family processes contribute to boys bullying. Child Study Journal, 30(3), 169186.
Dehue, F., Bolman, C., Vollink, T., & Pouwelse, M. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in relation to adolescents perception of parenting. Journal
of CyberTherapy and Rehabilitation, 5, 2534.
Demanet, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2012). The impact of bullying and victimization on students relationships. American Journal of Health Education, 43(2),
104113.
Demaray, M. K., & Malecki, C. K. (2003). Perceptions of the frequency and importance of social support by students classied as victims, bullies, and
bully/victims in an urban middle school. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 471489.
Duncan, R. D. (1999). Maltreatment by parents and peers: The relationship between child abuse, bully victimization, and psychological distress. Child
Maltreatment, 4(1), 4555.
Duncan, R. D. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and their victims. In D. L. Espelage, & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American
schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 227244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duong, M. T., Schwartz, D., Chang, L., Kelly, B. M., & Tom, S. R. (2009). Associations between maternal physical discipline and peer vic-
timization among Hong Kong Chinese children: The moderating role of child aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(7),
957966.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629634.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Reiser, M. (1999). Parental reactions to childrens negative emotions: Longitudinal
relations to quality of childrens social functioning. Child Development, 70, 513534.
Fanti, K. A., Demetriou, A. G., & Hawa, V. V. (2012). A longitudinal study of cyberbullying: Examining risk and protective factors. European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 9, 168181.
Fine, M. A., Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1993). Relations between parental control and warmth and child well-being in stepfamilies. Journal of Family
Psychology, 7, 222232.
Finkelhor, D., & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic impact of child sexual abuse: A conceptualization. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 530541.
Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization by peers: Associations with childrens reports of motherchild interaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 10761086.
Fisher, H. L., Moftt, T. E., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Arseneault, L., & Caspi, A. (2012). Bullying victimisation and risk of self harm in early adolescence:
Longitudinal cohort study. BMJ, 344 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2683
Franic, T., Dodig, G., Kardum, G., Marcinko, D., Ujevic, A., & Bilusic, M. (2011). Early adolescence and suicidal ideations in Croatia: Sociodemographic,
behavioral, and psychometric correlates. Crisis, 32, 334345.
Georgiou, S. (2008). Bullying and victimization at school: The role of mothers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 109125.
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 10591065.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with childrens self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology,
81, 143154.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-
sectional studies. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441455.
Hay, C., & Meldrum, R. (2010). Bullying victimization and adolescent self-harm: Testing hypotheses from general strain theory. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 39, 446459.
Haynie, D. L., Nansel Tonja, R., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of
at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21(1), 2949.
Hazemba, A., Siziya, S., Muula, A. S., & Rudatsikira, E. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of being bullied among in-school adolescents in Beijing: Results
from the 2003 Beijing Global School-Based Health Survey. Annals of General Psychiatry, 7, 6.
Helweg-Larsen, K., Schutt, N., & Larsen, H. B. (2012). Predictors and protective factors for adolescent Internet victimization: Results from a 2008 nationwide
Danish youth survey. International Journal of Paediatrics, 101(5), 533539.
Herba, C. M., Ferdinand, R. F., Stijnen, T., Veenstra, R., Oldehinkel, A. J., Ormel, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2008). Victimization and suicide ideation in the TRAILS
study: Specic vulnerabilities of victims. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 867876.
Holden, G. W., & Miller, P. C. (1999). Enduring and different: A meta-analysis of the similarity in parents child rearing. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 223254.
Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 984994.
Holt, M. K., Kaufman Kantor, G., & Finkelhor, D. (2009). Parent/child concordance about bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying
and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8, 4263.
 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108 1107

Jimenez, T. I., Musitu, G., Ramos, M. J., & Murgui, S. (2009). Community involvement and victimization at school: An analysis through family, personal and
social adjustment. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 959974.
Johnson, R. M., Kidd, J. D., Dunn, E. C., Green, J., Greif Corliss, H. L., & Bowen, D. (2011). Associations between caregiver support, bullying, and depressive
symptomatology among sexual minority and heterosexual girls: Results from the 2008 Boston youth survey. Journal of School Violence, 10, 185200.
Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 12311237.
Kaufman, J., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). Effects of maltreatment on school-age childrens socioemotional development: Assessments in a day-camp setting.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 516524.
Kelleher, I., Harley, M., Lynch, F., Arseneault, L., Fitzpatrick, C., & Cannon, M. (2008). Association between childhood trauma, bullying and psychotic symptoms
among a school-based adolescent sample. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 193, 378382.
Kim, Y. S., Leventhal, B. L., Koh Yun-Joo Hubbard, A., & Boyce, W. T. (2006). School bullying and youth violence: Causes or consequences of psychopathologic
behavior? Archives of General Psychiatry, 63, 10351041.
Klomek, A. B., Sourander, A., Niemel, S., Kumpulainen, K., Piha, J., Tamminen, T., & Gould, M. S. (2009). Childhood bullying behaviors as a risk for suicide
attempts and completed suicides: A population-based birth cohort study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48, 254261.
Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2003). Childrens coping strategies: Moderators of the effects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38,
267278.
Koenig, A. L., Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2000). Child compliance/noncompliance and maternal contributors to internalization in maltreating and
nonmaltreating dyads. Child Development, 71, 10181032.
Kokkinos, C. M., & Panayiotou, G. (2007). Parental discipline practices and locus of control: Relationship to bullying and victimization experiences of
elementary school students. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 281301.
Kumpulainen, K., & Rasanen, E. (2000). Children involved in bullying at elementary school age: Their psychiatric symptoms and deviance in adolescence:
An epidemiological sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 15671577.
Ladd, G. W. (1992). Themes and theories: Perspectives on processes in family peer relationships. In R. D. Park, & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Familypeer relationships:
Models of linkage (pp. 334). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lemstra, M. E., Nielsen, G., Rogers, M. R., Thompson, A. T., & Moraros, J. S. (2012). Risk indicators and outcomes associated with bullying in youth aged 915
years. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 103, 913.
Lengua, L. J. (2006). Growth in temperament and parenting as predictors of adjustment during childrens transition to adolescence. Developmental Psychology,
42, 819832.
Linver, M. R., & Silverberg, S. B. (1997). Maternal predictors of early adolescent achievement-related outcomes. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 17(3),
294318.
Lowenstein, L. F. (1977). Who is the bully? Home and School, 11, 34.
Lowenstein, L. F. (1978). The bullied and non-bullied child: A contrast between the popular and unpopular child. Report: ED175200 (15 pp).
Ma, L., Phelps, E., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). The development of academic competence among adolescents who bully and who are bullied. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 628644.
Ma, T. L., & Bellmore, A. (2012). Peer victimization and parental psychological control in adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(3), 413424.
Ma, X. (2001). Bullying and being bullied: To what extent are bullies also victims? American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 351370.
Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & Ylc, Cura. (2006). Direct and indirect bully-victims: Differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents
involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551569.
Mesch, G. S. (2009). Parental mediation, online activities, and cyberbullying. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 12(4), 387393.
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims bullies and bullyvictims. Children
and Youth Services Review, 34, 6370.
Mohr, A. (2006). Family variables associated with peer victimization: Does family violence enhance the probability of being victimized by peers? Swiss
Journal of Psychology, 65(2), 107116.
Murray-Harvey, R., & Slee, P. T. (2010). School and home relationships and their impact on school bullying. School Psychology International, 31(3), 271295.
Muula, A. S., Herring, P., Siziya, S., & Rudatsikira, E. (2009). Bullying victimization and physical ghting among Venezuelan adolescents in Barinas: Results
from the Global School-Based Health Survey 2003. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 35(38).
Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development, 19, 221242.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Olweus, D. (2002). Bullying at school. Oxford: Blackwell.
Perren, S., & Hournung, R. (2005). Bulling and delinquency in adolescence: Victims and perpetrators family and peer relations. Swiss Journal of Psychology,
64(1), 5164.
Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of chronic victimization by peers: A review and a new model of family inuence. In J. Juvonen,
& S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 73104). New York: The Guildford Press.
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal
studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 244252.
Rigby, K. (1993). School childrens perceptions of their families and parents as a function of peer relations. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 501513.
Rigby, K., Slee, P. T., & Martin, G. (2007). Implications of inadequate parental bonding and peer victimization for adolescent mental health. Journal of
Adolescence, 30, 801812.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The le drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638641.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analysis: A review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 53, 247271.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183192.
Rothon, C., Head, J., Klineberg, E., & Stansfeld, S. (2011). Can social support protect bullied adolescents from adverse outcomes? A prospective study on the
effects of bullying on the educational achievement and mental health of adolescents at secondary schools in East London. Journal of Adolescence, 34,
579588.
Rudatsikira, E., Mataya, R. H., Siziya, S., & Muula, A. S. (2008). Association between bullying victimization and physical ghting among Filipino adolescents:
Results from the global school-based health survey. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 75(12), 12431247.
Rudatsikira, E., Muula, A. S., & Siziya, S. (2007). Prevalence and associated factors of suicidal ideation among school-going adolescents in Guyana: Results
from a cross sectional study. Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 3, 13.
Rudatsikira, E., Muula, A. S., & Siziya, S. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of physical ghting among school-going adolescents in Santiago, Chile. Revista
Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 30(3), 197202.
Rudatsikira, E., Siziya, S., Kazembe, L. N., & Muula, A. S. (2007). Prevalence and associated factors of physical ghting among school-going adolescents in
Namibia. Annals of General Psychiatry, 6(18).
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316331.
Samara, M. M., & Smith, P. K. (2008). How schools tackle bullying, and the use of whole school policies: Changes over the last decade. Educational Psychology,
28, 663676.
Schreier, A., Wolke, D., Thomas, K., Horwood, J., Hollis, C., Gunnell, D., & Harrison, G. (2009). Prospective study of peer victimization in childhood and
psychotic symptoms in a nonclinical population at age 12 years. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66, 527536.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1993). The emergence of chronic peer victimization in boys play groups. Child Development, 64, 1755.
Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development, 68,
665675.
1108 S.T. Lereya et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 10911108

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2000). Friendship as a moderating factor in the pathway between early harsh home environment and
later victimization in the peer group. The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Developmental Psychology, 36, 646662.
Segrin, C., Nevarez, N., Arroyo, A., & Harwood, J. (2012). Family of origin environment and adolescent bullying predict young adult loneliness. Journal of
Psychology, 146, 119134.
Shakoor, S., Jaffee, S. R., Bowes, L., Ouellet-Morin, I., Andreou, P., Happe, F., Moftt, T. E., & Arseneault, L. (2012). A prospective longitudinal study of childrens
theory of mind and adolescent involvement in bullying. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 254261.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated children: The contributions of attention and emotion dysregulation. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 381395.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349363.
Shin, Y., & Kim, H. Y. (2008). Peer victimization in Korean preschool children: The effects of child characteristics, parenting behaviours and teacherchild
relationships. School Psychology International, 29(5), 590605.
Smokowski, P. R., & Kopasz, K. H. (2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children &
Schools, 27(2), 101110.
Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel Tonja, R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations:
Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 283293.
Starrels, M. E. (1994). Gender differences in parentchild relations. Journal of Family Issues, 15(1), 148165.
Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P. (2002). Relationship of the family environment to childrens involvement in bully/victim problems at
school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(6), 419428.
Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G. D., Rennie, D., & Thacker, S. B. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology:
A proposal for reporting. JAMA, 283(15), 20082012.
Tanigawa, D., Furlong, M. J., Felix, E. D., & Sharkey, J. D. (2011). The protective role of perceived social support against the manifestation of depressive
symptoms in peer victims. Journal of School Violence, 10, 393412.
Totura, C. W. M., MacKinnon-Lewis, C., Gesten, E. L., Gadd Ray Divine, K. P., Dunham, S., & Kamboukos, D. (2009). Bullying and victimization among boys
and girls in middle school: The inuence of perceived family and school contexts. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(4), 571609.
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A
comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672682.
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 45, 368375.
Wang, J., Nansel, T. R., & Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying: Differential association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48,
415417.
Wilson, M. L., Bovet, P., Viswanathan, B., & Suris, J. C. (2012). Bullying among adolescents in a sub-Saharan middle-income setting. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 51, 9698.
Windle, M., Brener, N., Cuccaro, P., Dittus, P., Kanouse, D. E., Murray, N., & Schuster, M. A. (2010). Parenting predictors of early-adolescents health behaviors:
Simultaneous group comparisons across sex and ethnic groups. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 594606.
Winsper, C., Lereya, T., Zanarini, M., & Wolke, D. (2012). Involvement in bullying and suicide-related behavior at 11 years: A prospective birth cohort study.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 51, 271282.
Wolke, D., Copeland, W. E., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. Impact of bullying in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime and social outcomes. Psychological
Science, in press.
Wolke, D., & Samara, M. M. (2004). Bullied by siblings: Association with peer victimisation and behaviour problems in Israeli lower secondary school
children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 10151029.
Wolke, D., Schreier, A., Zanarini, M. C., & Winsper, C. (2012). Bullied by peers in childhood and borderline personality symptoms at 11 years of age: A
prospective study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(8), 846855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02542.x
Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomeld, L., & Karstadt, L. (2000). The association between direct and relational bullying and behaviour problems among primary
school children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 9891002.
Wolke, D., Woods, S., Bloomeld, L., & Karstadt, L. (2001). Bullying involvement in primary school and common health problems. Archives of Disease in
Childhood, 85, 197201.
Woods, S., & White, E. (2005). The association between bullying behaviour, arousal levels and behaviour problems. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 381395.
World Helth Organization. (2012). Risk behaviours: Being bullied and bullying others. In C. Currie, C. Zanaotti, A. Morgan, D. Currie, M. de Looze, C. Roberts,
O. Samdal, O. R. F. Smith, & V. Barnekow (Eds.), Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Health Behaviour in School-aged Children
(HBSC) study: International report from the 2009/2010 survey (pp. 191200). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Ofce for Europe (Health Policy for Children
and Adolescents, No. 6).
Yabko, B. A., Hokoda, A., & Ulloa, E. C. (2008). Depression as a mediator between family factors and peer-bullying victimization in Latino adolescents.
Violence & Victims, 23(6), 727742.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: A comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 13081316.
Zwierzynska, K., Wolke, D., & Lereya, T. (2013). Peer victimization in childhood and internalizing problems in adolescence: A prospective longitudinal
study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(2), 309323.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.
2013.03.001.